The SCOTUS is only an activist court when it renders an opinion that you disagree with.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

The SCOTUS is only an activist court when it renders an opinion that you disagree with.

I have been thinking that perhaps Chief Justice John Roberts is planning ahead on an overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision which does look like legislating from the bench. The right to abortion does seem to be something he and his wife are very much concerned with weakening it and putting it back in the care of each State.

Had been wondering if Justice Kennedy was also thinking along these lines too. Putting a little usual Scalia landmine in a previous decision which he can use to argue if another decision needs a little derailing. I saw a 60 Minutes or some kind of news program that discussed how Justice Scalia liked to plant these kind of asides in his decisions and then refer back to them.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

The SCOTUS is only an activist court when it renders an opinion that you disagree with.

That's a puerile view of what the dissenters are angry about. InJustice Roberts actually reimagined the Congressional Bill to be constitutional IF the included mandate was INSTEAD a tax.

No amount of leftists backslapping each other can change the impropriety of that unconstitutional action in passing this unconstitutional law.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

That's a puerile view of what the dissenters are angry about. InJustice Roberts actually reimagined the Congressional Bill to be constitutional IF the included mandate was INSTEAD a tax.

No amount of leftists backslapping each other can change the impropriety of that unconstitutional action in passing this unconstitutional law.

It is the US Supreme Court that determines what is Constitutional law or not. Chief Justice Roberts actually made a good decision if he wants to paint his Court as not just following the dictates of each justice's political leanings.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

That's a puerile view of what the dissenters are angry about. InJustice Roberts actually reimagined the Congressional Bill to be constitutional IF the included mandate was INSTEAD a tax.

No amount of leftists backslapping each other can change the impropriety of that unconstitutional action in passing this unconstitutional law.

My statement stands.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

It is the US Supreme Court that determines what is Constitutional law or not. Chief Justice Roberts actually made a good decision if he wants to paint his Court as not just following the dictates of each justice's political leanings.

Now they're gods and infallible? The Supreme Court cannot decide an issue because of selfish or political concerns that have nothing to do with constitutionality?

That is patently ridiculous. There is nothing in my statement that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by DaleMN

My statement stands.

whoop-de-doo

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Now they're gods and infallible? The Supreme Court cannot decide an issue because of selfish or political concerns that have nothing to do with constitutionality?

That is patently ridiculous. There is nothing in my statement that is incorrect.

I really wonder what crowing we would be hearing from the conservatives IF the Affordable Care Act would have been struck down in it's entirety or even just the personal mandate part?

We would not be hearing about Chief Injustice Roberts, except as a great constituitional genius.

Well, guys, the shoe is on the other foot.

Two big losses in two weeks is not a great record for the wubers.

Originally Posted by buggyone

I really wonder what crowing we would be hearing from the conservatives IF the Affordable Care Act would have been struck down in it's entirety or even just the personal mandate part?

We would not be hearing about Chief Injustice Roberts, except as a great constituitional genius.

Well, guys, the shoe is on the other foot.

Two big losses in two weeks is not a great record for the wubers.

Two big losses in one week - Monday and Thursday. Good thing Mitt Romney is taking a vacation this week. See you at the tea party meeting.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

whoop-de-doo

whoop-de-ding

Originally Posted by RichieLion

Now they're gods and infallible? The Supreme Court cannot decide an issue because of selfish or political concerns that have nothing to do with constitutionality?

That is patently ridiculous. There is nothing in my statement that is incorrect.

Your twisting my words is hilarious. The US Supreme Court by history is the final arbiter of whether or not a law is Constitutional or not. That's our system. It is often very wrong in result when viewed by subsequent US Supreme Court decisions.

I never said they were Gods or infallible. That's ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Your twisting my words is hilarious. The US Supreme Court by history is the final arbiter of whether or not a law is Constitutional or not. That's our system. It is often very wrong in result when viewed by subsequent US Supreme Court decisions.

I never said they were Gods or infallible. That's ridiculous.

I only said that because you indicated that "it's constitutional, because they said so". That's ridiculous on it's face.

You may say they made that decision, but I'm saying that decision was manufactured and reimagined in order to twist the bill into something it's proponents said it was not.

Anybody who tells me that the bill is lawful and constitutional because "they said so" is; well........I guess I'd have to keep that thought to myself.

Originally Posted by RichieLion

I only said that because you indicated that "it's constitutional, because they said so". That's ridiculous on it's face.

You may say they made that decision, but I'm saying that decision was manufactured and reimagined in order to twist the bill into something it's proponents said it was not.

Anybody who tells me that the bill is lawful and constitutional because "they said so" is; well........I guess I'd have to keep that thought to myself.

Richie, you misunderstand once again. In your last paragraph, you start out with "the bill". It is NOT a bill. It is a LAW after the President signs the bill. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the LAW was within the scope of the Constitution. It was so decided. That is the American system, Richie.

The point is, now the federal government has a ruling that gives them the power to tax behavior. A precedent has been set and trust me, they will use it.

They can mandate you buy whatever they tell you to buy and if you don't you get assessed a tax.

Does that not frighten anyone?

Originally Posted by buggyone

Richie, you misunderstand once again. In your last paragraph, you start out with "the bill". It is NOT a bill. It is a LAW after the President signs the bill. The Supreme Court was asked to decide if the LAW was within the scope of the Constitution. It was so decided. That is the American system, Richie.

Okay, we're into semantics now; like you didn't know what I meant.

Also......duhhhh!...........I know it's the American system..........The point is if the Supreme Court, which is not supposed to render a decision with regard to political concerns but only if it's constitutionally sound does so, and get it's wrong; who is next in line to point that out the court's malfeasance?

The only ones are the American people...........

Thus, you have me and many others pointing that out.

Capisce??